Washington, DC — In July, Liberian President Charles Taylor offered an amnesty to opposition leaders he had accused of treason. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, one of those opposition leaders, took him up on it in order to visit her native land late last month after more than a year of political exile in the United States. Though pleased to see friends and family, some dimensions of the visit were depressing, says Johnson-Sirleaf. She remains unpersuaded that Charles Taylor wants any meaningful change. In 1997, Johnson-Sirleaf ran against Taylor for the presidency, and one of the things she is pondering is whether to run again in elections scheduled 2003. AllAfrica's Charles Cobb Jr. spoke with Johnson-Sirleaf, who visited Washington shortly after her trip to Liberia.
There is an immediate question. In going to Liberia, were you accepting the pardon that Charles Taylor offered you?
Yes, because I could not have returned without the pardon, so yes, I accepted it.
Can we infer from that that you are now in some sort of discussion and working out your differences with Mr. Taylor?
So I don't sound like I'm contradicting myself, I have said that there was no need for a pardon because I did not commit a pardonable offense. That has always been my position. But, I do accept the gesture from Mr. Taylor that enabled me to return home. And for that, I am grateful.
What was it like going back home after being on a "wanted" list, so to speak?
I think it was a good trip. I reconnected with family, with friends, with supporters, with partisans; and I was able to be back home which is something I think every Liberian looks forward to or should look forward to. And so, just being back home, in my view, was enough.
And how did you find Liberia? How long had you been away?
I'd been away for some 14 months, a little over that. Well, the situation there continues to be very difficult. A lot needs to be done to restore services. There are one or two promising signs. I think, for example, the new Mayor of Monrovia has done a tremendous job in trying to clean up the city. She should be commended and assisted to enable her to do even more. I was a little disappointed at the lack of restoration of basic services such as lights, water; individual Liberians not doing things to restore their homes or businesses because of the tough environment.
I read something in which you said that, at some levels, you found the trip depressing.
Yes, along these lines. People have failed - government, individuals and so on - to give a sense of restoration to the city. The signs of decay and disrepair are still so evident. That's bound to obstruct anyone trying to look for the country's return to normalcy, wanting to do anything like investment; it's just bound to be a constraint.
Did you get to travel widely in the country or were you pretty much in Monrovia?
Not widely because I wasn't there for that long. I did go outside of Monrovia to my ancestral village, Kormah. Things there are returning to normal. People in the village are trying to find their lives again. It's tough for them, too, to get their farms back into production. And most of the homes and buildings are still not repaired because they don't have the resources to do so. Jobs are very difficult. Those who do have jobs mainly have government jobs and they don't get paid because the government doesn't have the resources to pay them. So, it makes life difficult, even out there in the villages. They live through subsistence means.
You were supposed to meet with Mr. Taylor before you left, but didn't. What happened?
Mr. Taylor changed the meeting that had been agreed. I went into Liberia with a precise schedule: Arriving on Friday, leaving on Tuesday at noon. A meeting had been set with him for Monday at 11 am. His office required a letter from our party - the Unity Party. That letter requesting the meeting was given. They responded and we have copies of the letters which say his schedule is so busy he might see me on Thursday or maybe on Tuesday but the protocol officers would visit the Party to finalize the arrangements. They never did finalize. It was not until I was at the airport on Tuesday, leaving on schedule, that I was asked to return to Monrovia because Mr. Taylor was waiting for the meeting. I could not change at that late stage because I had to be in Abidjan on Wednesday. There is no flight from Monrovia to Abidjan on Wednesday. I was scheduled to leave Abidjan Wednesday to go to Dakar to chair a meeting on Thursday morning. There was no way I could change. So the meeting never took place because Mr. Taylor changed. He did not want the meeting to take place. The propaganda that I left unceremoniously while he waited for me is sheer propaganda; it is not the truth.
Will you be going back and forth to Liberia with more frequency now?
I hope so. And I hope to stay for longer periods. And I hope that a meeting will take place with Mr. Taylor, that there will be an opportunity between my party officials and his party officials to dialogue on issues of national concern, particularly as related to national development. I look forward to that.
You're so identified as a sharp and even bitter critic of Charles Taylor. What's your assessment of him and how he is managing the country at this point?
You know I am still waiting to see Mr. Taylor's vision for moving the country forward. I am still waiting to understand the development agenda, if there is one. And it's been a long time. It has been four years since elections. I believe his views and his strategies for moving the country should by now be made a subject of public debate, and they should be known to all of us so that we can share in it, we can contribute to it, or we can challenge it, or whatever. But that's lacking.
Elections are scheduled for 2003. In that context are we likely to see that [vision] and will you be running?
I think there is a lot to be done to make the environment conducive for free and fair elections, to make sure there is a level playing field, to make sure we don't have a repeat of the 1997 election experience. That really means more has to be done for reconciliation. More has to be done to give people the confidence to return. More has to be done for equal opportunity so that those who associate with parties of their choice do not feel victimized or disadvantaged. And if those things are not corrected I am afraid you will not have a process - or you will have a process that is very flawed.
My own ambition? I don't know. Again, we have taken a position in our party that we are going to try to depersonalize the politics. And what that means is that we are going to encourage competition for different electoral positions. We want to go to a convention. We want to subject all of those who wish to be candidates to the wishes of the people. And also the party wants to work with other parties if they agree on some common agenda. That may again lead to any person subjecting his own personal ambition to the national good.
Well, will you be one of those candidates?
I don't know. I don't know. At this point I am leaving myself undecided on this matter because I've born the brunt of Mr. Taylor's accusations and criticisms and rage so long that I think I am tiring of being a target.
Are you optimistic about the prospects for free and fair elections in 2003?
Not under present conditions. Not unless great improvements were to be made and those improvements would have to have the material, moral and significant support, first, of the West African leadership through Ecowas [the Economic Community of West African States] perhaps. And also of the international community and those countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, which lead the effort for improving international democratization.
Liberia sits in a larger regional context, a tumultuous regional context. What kind of role will Liberia play, especially in terms of the RUF in Sierra Leone, which for many years Liberia has backed.
I think the RUF itself has been changing and has been cooperating with the United Nations forces. Reports show that disarmament is taking place, no matter if it's slower than wished. That suggests that Mr. Taylor's support of the RUF has perhaps been weakened, and whatever hold he has, he certainly must agree that now is a time for fighting in Sierra Leone and atrocities to come to an end. It's a good sign. To the extent that he has contributed to this change by the RUF he needs to be commended for that and let us hope that the progress that is being made will continue.
We have kind of a changed situation in the aftermath of September 11 around the world, including Africa. I am wondering, and want to put to you in terms of the kind of anti-terror campaign the United States is launching, whether you worry some that one of the effects of that will be to legitimize guys who have been considered "bad" guys, like Charles Taylor, in the name of the necessities of fighting terror?
We do hope the U.S. is going to draw some line and examine the sincerity of those who are now embracing the U.S. and offering assistance. One of the reasons we believe terrorists were able to do what they did on September 11 is because terrorist states and terrorist actions in many parts of the world, including Africa, have not been challenged, have not been dealt with by the U.S. I point out that cutting off the limb of a three or four-year-old in Sierra Leone is an act of terrorism by any measurement!
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Yes. But that notwithstanding, can you foresee that in the name of U.S. objectives, sanctions might be lifted against Liberia, for instance? That sort of thing? Charles Taylor gets rehabilitated?
Based upon my consultations, I think the U.S. decision on sanctions on Liberia will come out of their own assessment of the conditions in Liberia, the government's violation of human rights or the government's willingness to allow an environment in which people can exercise certain basic freedoms. I don't think it is going to have anything to do with the September 11 events or the action by the Liberian government to show its solidarity in the effort against terrorism.
I believe the U.S. is going to make a very objective, independent assessment of the situation in Liberia as regards fundamental human rights, as regards the processes of reconciliation, creating the conditions for people to exercise their free will, the restoration of basic services to people, and then they will determine their position on that basis.
The flip side of my question is whether or not Charles Taylor (since we're talking about Liberia, although any number of authoritarian regimes come to mind) will take this as an opportunity to liberalize their regimes, loosen up the kind of hold they've had?
On that one, let us hope so! If September 11 would have the effect of changing Mr. Taylor, of having him see that his own survival and certainly the prosperity of the nation would come from his changed behavior, will come from allowing people more freedoms, promoting a more open society, doing more for reconciliation, and for getting development processes on track - if it leads to that, then there will be one good result from a very unfortunate and devastating event.
When you look down the road, what do you predict? What would you bet will happen in Liberia?
My hope is that it will change but I'm afraid it is still business as usual and memories regarding this event and its aftermath will fade, and we will be right back to the same old status quo. I hope I am wrong. We hope this event will be a catalyst for change - change of behavior, change in attitude, change in approaches by Mr. Taylor and his government, but we'll have to wait and see. We will pray for that.
